1. There is considerable evidence on what contributes to a successful collaborative effort leading toward reduced cost for broadband (and in fact other successful projects).<br/>

+

a. Leadership<br/>

+

Often from a “third party” without a vested interest:<br/>

+

Missouri, Higher ed geek<br/>

+

Ohio, OLA executive secretary and a professor in library school<br/>

+

Kentucky, Connect Kentucky<br/>

+

Maine, NJ, Maryland – the State Library<br/>

+

b. Vision<br/>

+

Clear picture in their heads what they want to happen, often in print for quick distribution:<br/> True in all the states with a robust network now<br/>

+

c. Exclusivity<br/>

+

Invited lots of people to meetings. Formed teams from interested meetings. Transparent publicity about the project.<br/>

+

d. Aggregation<br/>

+

Aggregated demand to get better rates from providers<br/>

+

Works in all states and regions with a good network<br/>

+

e. Good technical plan developed with “geek squad” to help libraries implement<br/>

+

f. “Road Trip” or “dog and pony” show to demonstrate what can be done with the new technology. True in many states. Leads to librarians willing to lobby for funding. Many people still don’t see the need. It will need to be demonstrated graphically for people to see this.<br/>

+

g. Training of librarians in the new technology so they feel comfortable and see the value<br/>

+

h. Champion at state governmental level. This is often cultivated by the State Librarian. Governor’s Office, Legislator, Budget/IT officer<br/>

+

i. Money – from state, erate, LSTA, local, often combined in a creative way to achieve goals.<br/>

+

j. State Library plays a role <br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. Nobody has a satisfactory way to plan how much bandwidth is needed. There are a multitude of methods being used. The most successful combine these elements:<br/>

+

a. How much is actually available from a provider<br/>

+

b. How much does it cost and is it affordable<br/>

+

c. How much is needed to do what the users and the library wants to provide. Limitations drive users away.<br/>

+

d. Close tracking to determine actual use and when it is approaching capacity<br/>

+

e. A policy that encourages use and does not put moral or ethical limits on what is appropriate<br/>

+

<br/>

+

In addition, adding more bandwidth often leads to more of something else: more staff or more staff training, more routers and servers, more computers, more policies to handle the increased use, more programs that can now be delivered and most of all….. more use. What is clear is that there is no ONE bandwidth appropriate for all libraries. If ONE has to be chosen, T-1 seems to be robust to handle most uses of most small libraries. What is crucial is that whatever bandwidth is chosen as the baseline, it should be scalable as soon as growth is necessary.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

3. Libraries in rural areas are playing an incredibly important role in providing internet access to the public. This is a combination of their traditional role of open access to all comers and that they often have one of the most robust connections in down, even if the library’s connection is pathetically poor.

+

Internet connectivity is critical not just to the successful operation of the library but to its actually opening its doors. The lack of connectivity causes problems for local libraries from mild (such as slow down in the afternoon experienced even by libraries as large as San Francisco and Los Angeles) to major such as the inability to even search the card catalog.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

4. Some people (including librarians) do not see the need for more robust broadband in the public library. There is a need to demonstrate this graphically (see above under “dog and pony show.”<br/>

+

<br/>

+

5. The very existence of our visits made a difference already. The reality of our visit caused the state librarian to reach out to people she/he had not reached out to before. And the response from states to the Gates name brought people to the table that had not met with the state librarian before. This will allow the state librarian to do follow-up that can lead to positive results.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

===Recommendations===

+

<em>For ALA</em><br/>

+

<br/>

+

1. Publish the findings of this study, particularly in the areas of:<br/>

+

a. Focus group findings<br/>

+

b. Collaborative success factors<br/>

+

c. Network configurations that work<br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. Send a report to each state we visited with some brief but targeted findings and recommendations for followup.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

<em>For Gates Foundation</em>

+

<br/>

+

The goal for ALA recommendations to the Gates Foundation should be tied to its goal of bringing broadband connectivity to the rural and under connected libraries in the country. This study has shown that, except where there is a VERY robust network (such as Ohio, Missouri, New Jersey, Maryland, Maine, ) there are pockets of libraries with low connection in every state. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

1. Establish state visits such as just conducted but longer with a report to the State Librarian about potential networking opportunities. These visits could be slightly longer and perhaps facilitate bringing people together using the collaborative model developed as par to this project.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. Assistance to libraries to plan for the future. This could be accomplished by assigning a staff person to each state to work with local libraries (this person should have close ties to the State Library but NOT be a state library staff person subject to the rules of such employment.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

This might take the form of trying to answer this question?

+

<em>What would it take, library by library (with Gates determining the eligibility) to get a T-1 (recommended but could be other speed) connection to that library?</em><br/>

+

<br/>

+

This could begin with a selected few pilot states, chosen by application by the states with a matching commitment for connectivity from the state or LSTA funds.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

As part of this effort, prepare a planning guide that can be used by local communities that includes technical planning. Planning methods need to be combined with the elements mentioned above:<br/>

+

<br/>

+

a. Bring together people in the library community or geographic community for planning<br/>

+

b. Consider the technical options available<br/>

+

c. Determine a bandwidth target (T-1 preferred) that is reasonable and affordable<br/>

+

d. Train libraries in negotiating as good a price as possible<br/>

+

<br/>

+

3. Use the Gates name to bring people together at the state and national level. A contribution by the Gates Foundation to every state, with publicity, to specifically address the connectivity of public libraries would likely have a significant impact. If such a contribution is not possible, the Gates Foundation should, instead, mount a major, prominent publicity campaign about the role of libraries on the information highway.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

4. In preparing a grant program, the Gates Foundation should realize that there are significant costs to bandwidth that include both telecommunication and equipment costs. Any funding should include an allowance for both as well as staff training. A funding program could include:<br/>

+

<br/>

+

a. Assistance at the state level for collaborative and technical planning<br/>

+

b. Funding for telecommunication costs to cover the last mile<br/>

+

c. Funding for equipment that is necessary such as routers and servers<br/>

+

d. Funding for training of library staff<br/>

+

<br/>

+

5. One major barrier is the attitude of citizens, governing authorities, library trustees and even librarians toward high speed broadband and its value. A major education program needs to be undertaken to show the value of broadband to:<br/>

1. The private sector has little understanding of the needs of the libraries. Both cable and telephone companies consistently maintained that broadband services are available and anyone can connect that wants to connect. We were constantly educating the companies about the libraries’ broadband needs.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. The most organized states also had the best connectivity. Organization is either at a statewide level (Missouri) or regional level (Ohio and Michigan). Idaho was particularly noteworthy for the disorganization of the state government (several state agencies each building their own state network). <br/>

+

<br/>

+

3. Libraries’ broadband connectivity was often adequate until video streaming. This will only get worse.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

4. Biggest problem with broadband connectivity is the “last mile.” Many states have backbones already, and are finding solutions to the “middle mile “ (extending the reach of the backbone into each community). The last mile link connecting the library to that link in the community is the most expensive. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

5. The most successful libraries were those able to aggregate demand into a regional consortium and issue an RFP for service. Private sector was more likely to respond. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

6. Investment in broadband was worst in rural areas served by a Bell Company. Rural areas served by rural telephone companies often had greater investment because of federal universal service funding; Bell companies serving metropolitan areas often had a large enough demand to invest without special programs. But many rural areas are served by a Bell Company that receives no subsidies.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

+

===Recommendations:===

+

1. Establish a Libraries’ Broadband Advocate (LBA): Each state should have its own library broadband advocate, much like the Consumer Advocate in most states. Librarians often do not have the technical expertise or the relationships with the telecom providers, causing libraries’ broadband connectivity to be unknown. Most telecom companies are completely unaware of the libraries’ demand for broadband. Some states created educational networks but did not include the libraries because nobody was championing the libraries’ cause. A Broadband Advocate could liaison with the industry, ensure that libraries are included in any state-funded network or broadband policy proposal. An advocate could also help organize libraries aggregate their demand into regional consortiums or cooperatives to obtain better terms from broadband companies (i.e. Upper Peninsula of Michigan).<br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. Geek Squad for Libraries: This is related to the idea of an Advocate (above), but is more technical. Individual librarians, especially in rural areas often need basic help connecting computers to the network, installing wireless (Wi-Fi), monitoring demand, alerting the broadband providers to their needs and requesting the right kind of new capacity when needed. The geek squad needs to be travel the state to go to the library sites sometimes to install the equipment or negotiate with the local telephone or cable representative. (Texas set aside LSTA money for technical assistance) <br/>

+

<br/>

+

3. Funding: There is simply no substitute for money. Often, the broadband capacity is available, but the library simply cannot afford to purchase the necessary capacity. Sometimes, the broadband capacity is not within reach of the local library because there is no “last mile” capacity to connect the library to the backbone network. The e-rate only goes a part of the way to satisfying this demand. Some creative ideas should be developed to make sure libraries and rural companies have the funding they need to deploy and purchase broadband, such as :<br/>

+

<br/>

+

a. Micro-loans<br/>

+

b. State library connectivity funds, funded either by general state revenues or a state “universal broadband for libraries fund” (UBLF).<br/>

4. Encourage Centralization of E-Rate Applications: The E-rate is the single most effective policy currently in place to help libraries obtain broadband, but libraries are unable to take full advantage of the E-rate in part because of the complexity of the application process. State Librarians’ offices are overwhelmed trying to provide e-rate assistance while working on many other issues, and there is considerable frustration with a program that should be regarded as a tremendous benefit. ALA attempts to provide e-rate training, but this is difficult to do on a national level. Ohio has a single person dedicated to help libraries fill out e-rate applications, and Missouri files a state-wide e-rate for all the schools and libraries in the state. Either model can be effective and help to maximize libraries’ funding.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

5. Create public-private partnerships: The private sector will fight to the death over government mandates, build-out requirements, government funded networks. On the other hand, a “laissez-faire” approach (simply trusting the market to work without government prodding) is dangerous because the private sector does not understand the libraries’ needs. The state government can stimulate greater deployment by working with industry to develop goals, plans, maps, etc. ConnectKentucky is a useful model, as is the effort of states to award large contracts to carriers (Kentucky Educational Network, Ohio, California), and creating task forces and study groups to explore broadband connectivity (California, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho)<br/>

+

<br/>

+

===No Recommendation:===

+

1. Video franchise legislation: impact on broadband is uncertain. A state bill may remove roadblocks, giving Bell companies greater incentives to invest. On the other hand, cities often require companies to serve libraries as a condition of the granting a cable franchise, and this benefit would be lost if the state assumes control over the franchise process.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

2. Funding to create a statewide library network: The problem with broadband connectivity for libraries is largely a “last-mile” issue. A statewide network is nice, and might allow the library to offer more appealing content or coordination with other libraries (increase the demand), but this may clog the library’s local broadband connection even more.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

3. Further rate deregulation of telephone companies: Broadband facilities are already largely deregulated. Deregulating POTS (Plain old telephone service) is not likely to stimulate new investment in broadband.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

4. Supporting Municipal networks, or statewide networks: This might be helpful to libraries, but creates enormous opposition from the private sector (cable and telephone companies likely go to war against the Gates Foundation) and tie the idea up in political knots.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

===TACTICS===

+

1. Negotiate for postalized (non-distance-sensitive) rates<br/>

+

2. Ensure libraries are included in any state contracts for state and local government telecom services<br/>

6. Take advantage of free broadband services offered by many cable companies<br/>

+

7. Encourage mapping and publication of broadband services and facilities (Connect Kentucky approach) is useful because libraries (and the industry) are often unaware of the broadband services and facilities that already exist.<br/>

==Bob B.==

==Bob B.==

+

===ALA Broadband Study: Some Thoughts and Suggestions===

+

In response to Rick’s email of March 20, I have outlined below my thoughts on findings and possible interventions. While there are always exceptions, my thoughts below are based more on what appears to be the general “rule” on library broadband connectivity and not the “exception.” As I noted while in D.C. two weeks ago, it is important that we realize there is not a single “magic bullet” solution that will fix every library’s BB issues. I think my focus on regional library WANs is a good place to start for many libraries but it is certainly not going to be a viable option for all libraries.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

===Connectivity and State Networks===

+

<em>First big finding:</em> As a rule, states that have statewide networks that obviously include libraries have fewer problems or issues with library connectivity and libraries having sufficient bandwidth. There are also related benefits of statewide networks. For example, it is often not the libraries responsibility to determine problems or issues with the library’s circuit or to work directly with the underlying carrier provisioning those circuits to resolve any issues. Most (all?) state networks operate network operations centers (NOC) to handle issues. Even in Wisconsin with 85 LECs provisioning circuits as part of our statewide network, there is a single toll-free number to call to get a problem fixed. There is no finger pointing. (Except for fiber cuts, the average time to restore a down circuit is just under 2 hours.) Considering the success of state networks, one obvious answer to the broadband connectivity issue is to work with states that have no state network to help get one created. But the impediments to doing this are daunting and I question whether the state network model is replicable in many states. There are many roadblocks but two principle ones I see are: <br/>

+

<br/>

+

1. Commitment: There is a need for a strong commitment from all parties involved. This includes, the highest levels of state government, the state’s higher education and K-12 communities, local units of government and the carriers. I do not see this happening in Michigan, the state I visited. And in reading through the notes from several other states, it also appears that the statewide approach will be an uphill climb at best.<br/>

+

2. Time. Even with a commitment of key parties, state networks often take several years (minimum) to come to fruition. I do not think the library community has the leisure of time to address its bandwidth issues via the state network option.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

<em>Second big finding:</em> Another big finding is the commitment needed to place the BB issue at the top of the library’s agenda and keep it there until it is resolved. This commitment includes key staff and the library’s board. In the regional approach that I advocate below, this type of commitment and leadership must also come at the regional level. <br/>

+

===Connectivity and Regional Library WANs===

+

Many of the benefits of statewide networks can be realized by working at a regional level. Most states have some type of regional library consortia or library cooperatives. In states with no statewide network, it appears that the most successful addressing of the library connectivity issue has been made in areas where the regional consortia have been proactive in creating and maintaining regional WANs. These are then often used for Internet connectivity and for the regional shared Integrated Library System.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Because the focus is more at a regional level the daunting tasks of a statewide commitment needed for a statewide network are brought down to a more manageable level. I think it is easier to build a coalition of the willing at the regional level. (This is not to imply it is easy, but it is easier relative to a statewide effort.) Below are several ideas on how to implement the regional model.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

• Using results from the visited or interview states, work with the State Library to identify 2-3 regions in their respective states where, at a minimum, there is a high level of commitment already in place to address the regions’ BB issues.<br/>

+

• Do some preliminary contacts and background work to winnow this list to 8-10 regions nationwide.<br/>

+

• Assist these regions to do a needs assessment (see model assessment below) to see where the 8-10 are in their broadband WAN development/implementation.<br/>

+

• Based on the assessment, winnow the list further down to 3-4 regions that show the most promise of success in a relatively near-term timeframe. <br/>

+

• Develop a team of experts in various topical areas that will work directly with the 3-4 selected regions to reach the goal of sufficient BB connectivity. This team would include experts in facilitation/problem resolution and coalition building; telecommunications both the regulatory aspects and more specific WAN engineering; legal issues including contract negotiations; procurement; funding, including E-rate. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

The Gates foundation can help in funding all of the above activities or actions needed to bring the WAN to fruition. I also suggest an ongoing foundation commitment of two years in subsidizing circuit costs and providing technical support. <br/>

+

+

===States Networks or regional WANS with connectivity issues:===

+

In some states with state/regional networks, there are still issues in procuring sufficient bandwidth. To assist libraries in these states, I suggest working with the State Library, the state and/or regional library networks to identify the specific libraries that are having broadband issues. In straightforward situations, in which circuit capacity is available but costly, Gates’ funding could be used to pay for the additional bandwidth for a two year period. At the outset, the library board would be required to make an upfront commitment that after two years it would make a concerted effort to replace the Gates $$ with other funds. One requirement for Gates $$ is that the library would have to apply for E-rate on its bandwidth. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

In areas where additional circuit capacity is not available, Gates funds could be used to provide technical help to work with all parties (telcos, library) to determine the impediments to higher bandwidth. I doubt if the foundation wants to get into funding any needed telco CO switch upgrade, but there may be other ways to assist on this issue. <br/>

+

===Public Relations Effort===

+

Another area I think the foundation can be very helpful with is in conducting an aggressive, nationwide PR campaign on the need for adequate library connectivity. I know it cannot actively lobby, but an awareness campaign targeted at local and state government officials and the telcos could be very helpful. Such a campaign should be coupled with statements that the foundation, working in cooperation with ALA, will be actively working to address this problem.

+

===Broadband Connectivity Assessment for Multi-library WANs===

+

The table below is an attempt to try and measure where libraries or regional consortia are on establishing or sustaining regional WANs. There are almost endless ways to construct this. The important issue is to have a mechanism or methodology to assess the status of WAN development in regional consortia, identify the issues, and develop solutions accordingly.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

In the table below a straight (horizontal/vertical) reading of the x and y axis show a linear progression. But when comparing between cells diagonally, you cannot always assume a linear progression. For example, a consortium may rank high on planning but they’ve done enough background work to realize that funding is doubtful and thus they rank low in this area.<br/>

==Mark==

==Mark==

+

===Findings===

+

Collaboration with others is an important factory. In most situations where libraries and other entities were connected, the libraries were collaborating with each other and/or other entities. Further, in some states that weren’t well connected, there was a lack of coordination/collaboration at any level to connect libraries and/or other entities to broadband. Further, a champion or group of champions is key to the establishment continuing success of deployment. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

There is a lack of understanding on behalf of a lot of the stakeholders as to the needs of broadband to libraries and some don’t understand the role of the library in the 21st century. When we talked to stakeholders, some didn’t quite get that there was an issue when it came to broadband deployment. They were not aware of the services libraries provided and the extra need for broadband because libraries need access to support both their staff work and for public access.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Many models exist for the creation of networks (in this case meaning broadband networks for connecting public libraries.) Various success factors for connecting entities include:<br/>

+

• The organization who builds the network negates with the ISP on behalf of the libraries<br/>

+

• The networking entity applies for E-Rate on behalf of the libraries it connects<br/>

+

o The entity that applies for E-Rate is able to apply for the telco circuit discount separately from the Internet access charge, which allows libraries to receive E-Rate without having to be CIPA compliant<br/>

+

• The networking agency was in the best position to provide for their clients. In some cases, this was a state agency (OH, KY), a non-profit (MO) or regional consortiums (MI and KS).<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Broadband speed is contextual. Different libraries require different amounts of bandwidth based upon the number of computers and the usage of these computers. One thing that was constant throughout was that current connection speeds to libraries is increasing exponentially with video and other applications that are upcoming that aren’t anticipated (one of which is higher quality video).<br/>

+

<br/>

+

769 Kbps is not sufficient bandwidth for public libraries now or in the future. In many focus groups, they indicated that not even a full T1 (twice the speed) is sufficient. Further, provisioning this amount of bandwidth for libraries may cost just as much as a T1. To quote Elwood Downing of MERIT:<br/>

+

“In Michigan, provisioning of a 768K telco circuit connection is the

+

same cost as a T1 (1.5M bps)circuit. When Merit places an order for a

+

fractional T1 service with the Telecommunications provider in Michigan they

+

install a T1 circuit to the Library. However, it is the Internet Service

+

Provider that will provision the through-put on the circuit to be 768K bps

+

instead of a full T1 1.5M bps.”<br/>

+

<br/>

+

+

===Recommendations===

+

Fund a project to increase collaboration between libraries and other entities. The level at which this collaboration takes place will vary from state to state (based upon the political environment.) I am not sure if this collaboration should be at the regional or state level, but it would appear regional is the most feasible. Through regional consortiums that exist in several states, they can aggregate demand to make a bigger investment case for and help libraries negotiate with ISPs and help apply for E-Rate. If no regional consortiums exist, perhaps the state? One thing that would be great is to fund a position at a state library that works with other agencies within the state to ensure libraries are considered in broadband strategies and partners with other agencies to get connected to ongoing projects.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Build tomorrow’s broadband connection today. Whatever project we end up funding to help increase deployment needs to ensure a scalable connection, so that as demand goes up, the bandwidth is available. Deploying a technology, such as T1 or a DSL line, will help libraries in the short run, but only up to a point because each one has a maximum speed. In states of high connectivity, they have maximized usage of these technologies and are struggling to find their next act. As whatever we fund works to increase deployment, we need to ensure that it scales easily. <br/>

+

<br/>

+

As part of the current advocacy activities, it is important to help show the case for broadband connectivity to libraries. I do not know the plans for advocacy activities, but specific groups need to be targeted to ensure that they receive the message that libraries are important when considering broadband deployment to communities and to help them to understand the needs of the libraries. The groups to be targeted include many of the groups we were talking to during our visits. Further, one option that has worked is to have ‘dog and pony shows’ whereby stakeholders are gathered at the library to discuss broadband deployment. One suggestion would be to work with elected officials to invite people to the library and have library staff express their need. Another is to initiate demonstrations of broadband within a public library.<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Increase librarian’s knowledge on broadband. Librarians need to understand that broadband is important and in many cases do not understand how to maximize the usage of their connection. Further, they may not know how to use the broadband effectively, how to adequately plan for connectivity, how to effectively apply for E-Rate, negotiate with ISPs, and a host of other broadband specific issues. A program to increase librarians’ knowledge of broadband and technology<br/>

+

<br/>

+

Finally, I would like to emphasize that we don’t always have to think big. Occasionally, small things can have an impact on deployment (e.g. One Economy’s strategy to require broadband in housing developments increased deployment in poor areas and low-income housing). Therefore, simple policy statements can have a great impact. One such suggestion would be to re-write zoning laws to make it a requirement to deploy fiber (and no copper) to every new house, business or library that is built for telecommunications. Such a policy shift could help spur deployment of fiber to residential areas and to libraries. As we talk over the next several days, it is important to not always think big thoughts.

1. There is considerable evidence on what contributes to a successful collaborative effort leading toward reduced cost for broadband (and in fact other successful projects).
a. Leadership
Often from a “third party” without a vested interest:
Missouri, Higher ed geek
Ohio, OLA executive secretary and a professor in library school
Kentucky, Connect Kentucky
Maine, NJ, Maryland – the State Library
b. Vision
Clear picture in their heads what they want to happen, often in print for quick distribution: True in all the states with a robust network now
c. Exclusivity
Invited lots of people to meetings. Formed teams from interested meetings. Transparent publicity about the project.
d. Aggregation
Aggregated demand to get better rates from providers
Works in all states and regions with a good network
e. Good technical plan developed with “geek squad” to help libraries implement
f. “Road Trip” or “dog and pony” show to demonstrate what can be done with the new technology. True in many states. Leads to librarians willing to lobby for funding. Many people still don’t see the need. It will need to be demonstrated graphically for people to see this.
g. Training of librarians in the new technology so they feel comfortable and see the value
h. Champion at state governmental level. This is often cultivated by the State Librarian. Governor’s Office, Legislator, Budget/IT officer
i. Money – from state, erate, LSTA, local, often combined in a creative way to achieve goals.
j. State Library plays a role

2. Nobody has a satisfactory way to plan how much bandwidth is needed. There are a multitude of methods being used. The most successful combine these elements:
a. How much is actually available from a provider
b. How much does it cost and is it affordable
c. How much is needed to do what the users and the library wants to provide. Limitations drive users away.
d. Close tracking to determine actual use and when it is approaching capacity
e. A policy that encourages use and does not put moral or ethical limits on what is appropriate

In addition, adding more bandwidth often leads to more of something else: more staff or more staff training, more routers and servers, more computers, more policies to handle the increased use, more programs that can now be delivered and most of all….. more use. What is clear is that there is no ONE bandwidth appropriate for all libraries. If ONE has to be chosen, T-1 seems to be robust to handle most uses of most small libraries. What is crucial is that whatever bandwidth is chosen as the baseline, it should be scalable as soon as growth is necessary.

3. Libraries in rural areas are playing an incredibly important role in providing internet access to the public. This is a combination of their traditional role of open access to all comers and that they often have one of the most robust connections in down, even if the library’s connection is pathetically poor.
Internet connectivity is critical not just to the successful operation of the library but to its actually opening its doors. The lack of connectivity causes problems for local libraries from mild (such as slow down in the afternoon experienced even by libraries as large as San Francisco and Los Angeles) to major such as the inability to even search the card catalog.

4. Some people (including librarians) do not see the need for more robust broadband in the public library. There is a need to demonstrate this graphically (see above under “dog and pony show.”

5. The very existence of our visits made a difference already. The reality of our visit caused the state librarian to reach out to people she/he had not reached out to before. And the response from states to the Gates name brought people to the table that had not met with the state librarian before. This will allow the state librarian to do follow-up that can lead to positive results.

1. Publish the findings of this study, particularly in the areas of:
a. Focus group findings
b. Collaborative success factors
c. Network configurations that work

2. Send a report to each state we visited with some brief but targeted findings and recommendations for followup.

For Gates Foundation
The goal for ALA recommendations to the Gates Foundation should be tied to its goal of bringing broadband connectivity to the rural and under connected libraries in the country. This study has shown that, except where there is a VERY robust network (such as Ohio, Missouri, New Jersey, Maryland, Maine, ) there are pockets of libraries with low connection in every state.

1. Establish state visits such as just conducted but longer with a report to the State Librarian about potential networking opportunities. These visits could be slightly longer and perhaps facilitate bringing people together using the collaborative model developed as par to this project.

2. Assistance to libraries to plan for the future. This could be accomplished by assigning a staff person to each state to work with local libraries (this person should have close ties to the State Library but NOT be a state library staff person subject to the rules of such employment.

This might take the form of trying to answer this question?
What would it take, library by library (with Gates determining the eligibility) to get a T-1 (recommended but could be other speed) connection to that library?

This could begin with a selected few pilot states, chosen by application by the states with a matching commitment for connectivity from the state or LSTA funds.

As part of this effort, prepare a planning guide that can be used by local communities that includes technical planning. Planning methods need to be combined with the elements mentioned above:

a. Bring together people in the library community or geographic community for planning
b. Consider the technical options available
c. Determine a bandwidth target (T-1 preferred) that is reasonable and affordable
d. Train libraries in negotiating as good a price as possible

3. Use the Gates name to bring people together at the state and national level. A contribution by the Gates Foundation to every state, with publicity, to specifically address the connectivity of public libraries would likely have a significant impact. If such a contribution is not possible, the Gates Foundation should, instead, mount a major, prominent publicity campaign about the role of libraries on the information highway.

4. In preparing a grant program, the Gates Foundation should realize that there are significant costs to bandwidth that include both telecommunication and equipment costs. Any funding should include an allowance for both as well as staff training. A funding program could include:

a. Assistance at the state level for collaborative and technical planning
b. Funding for telecommunication costs to cover the last mile
c. Funding for equipment that is necessary such as routers and servers
d. Funding for training of library staff

5. One major barrier is the attitude of citizens, governing authorities, library trustees and even librarians toward high speed broadband and its value. A major education program needs to be undertaken to show the value of broadband to:

1. The private sector has little understanding of the needs of the libraries. Both cable and telephone companies consistently maintained that broadband services are available and anyone can connect that wants to connect. We were constantly educating the companies about the libraries’ broadband needs.

2. The most organized states also had the best connectivity. Organization is either at a statewide level (Missouri) or regional level (Ohio and Michigan). Idaho was particularly noteworthy for the disorganization of the state government (several state agencies each building their own state network).

3. Libraries’ broadband connectivity was often adequate until video streaming. This will only get worse.

4. Biggest problem with broadband connectivity is the “last mile.” Many states have backbones already, and are finding solutions to the “middle mile “ (extending the reach of the backbone into each community). The last mile link connecting the library to that link in the community is the most expensive.

5. The most successful libraries were those able to aggregate demand into a regional consortium and issue an RFP for service. Private sector was more likely to respond.

6. Investment in broadband was worst in rural areas served by a Bell Company. Rural areas served by rural telephone companies often had greater investment because of federal universal service funding; Bell companies serving metropolitan areas often had a large enough demand to invest without special programs. But many rural areas are served by a Bell Company that receives no subsidies.

1. Establish a Libraries’ Broadband Advocate (LBA): Each state should have its own library broadband advocate, much like the Consumer Advocate in most states. Librarians often do not have the technical expertise or the relationships with the telecom providers, causing libraries’ broadband connectivity to be unknown. Most telecom companies are completely unaware of the libraries’ demand for broadband. Some states created educational networks but did not include the libraries because nobody was championing the libraries’ cause. A Broadband Advocate could liaison with the industry, ensure that libraries are included in any state-funded network or broadband policy proposal. An advocate could also help organize libraries aggregate their demand into regional consortiums or cooperatives to obtain better terms from broadband companies (i.e. Upper Peninsula of Michigan).

2. Geek Squad for Libraries: This is related to the idea of an Advocate (above), but is more technical. Individual librarians, especially in rural areas often need basic help connecting computers to the network, installing wireless (Wi-Fi), monitoring demand, alerting the broadband providers to their needs and requesting the right kind of new capacity when needed. The geek squad needs to be travel the state to go to the library sites sometimes to install the equipment or negotiate with the local telephone or cable representative. (Texas set aside LSTA money for technical assistance)

3. Funding: There is simply no substitute for money. Often, the broadband capacity is available, but the library simply cannot afford to purchase the necessary capacity. Sometimes, the broadband capacity is not within reach of the local library because there is no “last mile” capacity to connect the library to the backbone network. The e-rate only goes a part of the way to satisfying this demand. Some creative ideas should be developed to make sure libraries and rural companies have the funding they need to deploy and purchase broadband, such as :

a. Micro-loans
b. State library connectivity funds, funded either by general state revenues or a state “universal broadband for libraries fund” (UBLF).
c. Require telcos to contribute to a fund in return for deregulation (Ohio), merger approval (California), or video franchise legislation (?)
d. Matching grant program for broadband companies (Idaho)

4. Encourage Centralization of E-Rate Applications: The E-rate is the single most effective policy currently in place to help libraries obtain broadband, but libraries are unable to take full advantage of the E-rate in part because of the complexity of the application process. State Librarians’ offices are overwhelmed trying to provide e-rate assistance while working on many other issues, and there is considerable frustration with a program that should be regarded as a tremendous benefit. ALA attempts to provide e-rate training, but this is difficult to do on a national level. Ohio has a single person dedicated to help libraries fill out e-rate applications, and Missouri files a state-wide e-rate for all the schools and libraries in the state. Either model can be effective and help to maximize libraries’ funding.

5. Create public-private partnerships: The private sector will fight to the death over government mandates, build-out requirements, government funded networks. On the other hand, a “laissez-faire” approach (simply trusting the market to work without government prodding) is dangerous because the private sector does not understand the libraries’ needs. The state government can stimulate greater deployment by working with industry to develop goals, plans, maps, etc. ConnectKentucky is a useful model, as is the effort of states to award large contracts to carriers (Kentucky Educational Network, Ohio, California), and creating task forces and study groups to explore broadband connectivity (California, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho)

1. Video franchise legislation: impact on broadband is uncertain. A state bill may remove roadblocks, giving Bell companies greater incentives to invest. On the other hand, cities often require companies to serve libraries as a condition of the granting a cable franchise, and this benefit would be lost if the state assumes control over the franchise process.

2. Funding to create a statewide library network: The problem with broadband connectivity for libraries is largely a “last-mile” issue. A statewide network is nice, and might allow the library to offer more appealing content or coordination with other libraries (increase the demand), but this may clog the library’s local broadband connection even more.

3. Further rate deregulation of telephone companies: Broadband facilities are already largely deregulated. Deregulating POTS (Plain old telephone service) is not likely to stimulate new investment in broadband.

4. Supporting Municipal networks, or statewide networks: This might be helpful to libraries, but creates enormous opposition from the private sector (cable and telephone companies likely go to war against the Gates Foundation) and tie the idea up in political knots.

1. Negotiate for postalized (non-distance-sensitive) rates
2. Ensure libraries are included in any state contracts for state and local government telecom services
3. Aggregate demand to obtain lower prices
4. Set goals
5. Consider signing multi-year contracts to convince private sector companies to deploy last-mile facilities.
6. Take advantage of free broadband services offered by many cable companies
7. Encourage mapping and publication of broadband services and facilities (Connect Kentucky approach) is useful because libraries (and the industry) are often unaware of the broadband services and facilities that already exist.

In response to Rick’s email of March 20, I have outlined below my thoughts on findings and possible interventions. While there are always exceptions, my thoughts below are based more on what appears to be the general “rule” on library broadband connectivity and not the “exception.” As I noted while in D.C. two weeks ago, it is important that we realize there is not a single “magic bullet” solution that will fix every library’s BB issues. I think my focus on regional library WANs is a good place to start for many libraries but it is certainly not going to be a viable option for all libraries.

First big finding: As a rule, states that have statewide networks that obviously include libraries have fewer problems or issues with library connectivity and libraries having sufficient bandwidth. There are also related benefits of statewide networks. For example, it is often not the libraries responsibility to determine problems or issues with the library’s circuit or to work directly with the underlying carrier provisioning those circuits to resolve any issues. Most (all?) state networks operate network operations centers (NOC) to handle issues. Even in Wisconsin with 85 LECs provisioning circuits as part of our statewide network, there is a single toll-free number to call to get a problem fixed. There is no finger pointing. (Except for fiber cuts, the average time to restore a down circuit is just under 2 hours.) Considering the success of state networks, one obvious answer to the broadband connectivity issue is to work with states that have no state network to help get one created. But the impediments to doing this are daunting and I question whether the state network model is replicable in many states. There are many roadblocks but two principle ones I see are:

1. Commitment: There is a need for a strong commitment from all parties involved. This includes, the highest levels of state government, the state’s higher education and K-12 communities, local units of government and the carriers. I do not see this happening in Michigan, the state I visited. And in reading through the notes from several other states, it also appears that the statewide approach will be an uphill climb at best.
2. Time. Even with a commitment of key parties, state networks often take several years (minimum) to come to fruition. I do not think the library community has the leisure of time to address its bandwidth issues via the state network option.

Second big finding: Another big finding is the commitment needed to place the BB issue at the top of the library’s agenda and keep it there until it is resolved. This commitment includes key staff and the library’s board. In the regional approach that I advocate below, this type of commitment and leadership must also come at the regional level.

Many of the benefits of statewide networks can be realized by working at a regional level. Most states have some type of regional library consortia or library cooperatives. In states with no statewide network, it appears that the most successful addressing of the library connectivity issue has been made in areas where the regional consortia have been proactive in creating and maintaining regional WANs. These are then often used for Internet connectivity and for the regional shared Integrated Library System.

Because the focus is more at a regional level the daunting tasks of a statewide commitment needed for a statewide network are brought down to a more manageable level. I think it is easier to build a coalition of the willing at the regional level. (This is not to imply it is easy, but it is easier relative to a statewide effort.) Below are several ideas on how to implement the regional model.

• Using results from the visited or interview states, work with the State Library to identify 2-3 regions in their respective states where, at a minimum, there is a high level of commitment already in place to address the regions’ BB issues.
• Do some preliminary contacts and background work to winnow this list to 8-10 regions nationwide.
• Assist these regions to do a needs assessment (see model assessment below) to see where the 8-10 are in their broadband WAN development/implementation.
• Based on the assessment, winnow the list further down to 3-4 regions that show the most promise of success in a relatively near-term timeframe.
• Develop a team of experts in various topical areas that will work directly with the 3-4 selected regions to reach the goal of sufficient BB connectivity. This team would include experts in facilitation/problem resolution and coalition building; telecommunications both the regulatory aspects and more specific WAN engineering; legal issues including contract negotiations; procurement; funding, including E-rate.

The Gates foundation can help in funding all of the above activities or actions needed to bring the WAN to fruition. I also suggest an ongoing foundation commitment of two years in subsidizing circuit costs and providing technical support.

In some states with state/regional networks, there are still issues in procuring sufficient bandwidth. To assist libraries in these states, I suggest working with the State Library, the state and/or regional library networks to identify the specific libraries that are having broadband issues. In straightforward situations, in which circuit capacity is available but costly, Gates’ funding could be used to pay for the additional bandwidth for a two year period. At the outset, the library board would be required to make an upfront commitment that after two years it would make a concerted effort to replace the Gates $$ with other funds. One requirement for Gates $$ is that the library would have to apply for E-rate on its bandwidth.

In areas where additional circuit capacity is not available, Gates funds could be used to provide technical help to work with all parties (telcos, library) to determine the impediments to higher bandwidth. I doubt if the foundation wants to get into funding any needed telco CO switch upgrade, but there may be other ways to assist on this issue.

Another area I think the foundation can be very helpful with is in conducting an aggressive, nationwide PR campaign on the need for adequate library connectivity. I know it cannot actively lobby, but an awareness campaign targeted at local and state government officials and the telcos could be very helpful. Such a campaign should be coupled with statements that the foundation, working in cooperation with ALA, will be actively working to address this problem.

The table below is an attempt to try and measure where libraries or regional consortia are on establishing or sustaining regional WANs. There are almost endless ways to construct this. The important issue is to have a mechanism or methodology to assess the status of WAN development in regional consortia, identify the issues, and develop solutions accordingly.

In the table below a straight (horizontal/vertical) reading of the x and y axis show a linear progression. But when comparing between cells diagonally, you cannot always assume a linear progression. For example, a consortium may rank high on planning but they’ve done enough background work to realize that funding is doubtful and thus they rank low in this area.

Collaboration with others is an important factory. In most situations where libraries and other entities were connected, the libraries were collaborating with each other and/or other entities. Further, in some states that weren’t well connected, there was a lack of coordination/collaboration at any level to connect libraries and/or other entities to broadband. Further, a champion or group of champions is key to the establishment continuing success of deployment.

There is a lack of understanding on behalf of a lot of the stakeholders as to the needs of broadband to libraries and some don’t understand the role of the library in the 21st century. When we talked to stakeholders, some didn’t quite get that there was an issue when it came to broadband deployment. They were not aware of the services libraries provided and the extra need for broadband because libraries need access to support both their staff work and for public access.

Many models exist for the creation of networks (in this case meaning broadband networks for connecting public libraries.) Various success factors for connecting entities include:
• The organization who builds the network negates with the ISP on behalf of the libraries
• The networking entity applies for E-Rate on behalf of the libraries it connects
o The entity that applies for E-Rate is able to apply for the telco circuit discount separately from the Internet access charge, which allows libraries to receive E-Rate without having to be CIPA compliant
• The networking agency was in the best position to provide for their clients. In some cases, this was a state agency (OH, KY), a non-profit (MO) or regional consortiums (MI and KS).

Broadband speed is contextual. Different libraries require different amounts of bandwidth based upon the number of computers and the usage of these computers. One thing that was constant throughout was that current connection speeds to libraries is increasing exponentially with video and other applications that are upcoming that aren’t anticipated (one of which is higher quality video).

769 Kbps is not sufficient bandwidth for public libraries now or in the future. In many focus groups, they indicated that not even a full T1 (twice the speed) is sufficient. Further, provisioning this amount of bandwidth for libraries may cost just as much as a T1. To quote Elwood Downing of MERIT:
“In Michigan, provisioning of a 768K telco circuit connection is the
same cost as a T1 (1.5M bps)circuit. When Merit places an order for a
fractional T1 service with the Telecommunications provider in Michigan they
install a T1 circuit to the Library. However, it is the Internet Service
Provider that will provision the through-put on the circuit to be 768K bps
instead of a full T1 1.5M bps.”

Fund a project to increase collaboration between libraries and other entities. The level at which this collaboration takes place will vary from state to state (based upon the political environment.) I am not sure if this collaboration should be at the regional or state level, but it would appear regional is the most feasible. Through regional consortiums that exist in several states, they can aggregate demand to make a bigger investment case for and help libraries negotiate with ISPs and help apply for E-Rate. If no regional consortiums exist, perhaps the state? One thing that would be great is to fund a position at a state library that works with other agencies within the state to ensure libraries are considered in broadband strategies and partners with other agencies to get connected to ongoing projects.

Build tomorrow’s broadband connection today. Whatever project we end up funding to help increase deployment needs to ensure a scalable connection, so that as demand goes up, the bandwidth is available. Deploying a technology, such as T1 or a DSL line, will help libraries in the short run, but only up to a point because each one has a maximum speed. In states of high connectivity, they have maximized usage of these technologies and are struggling to find their next act. As whatever we fund works to increase deployment, we need to ensure that it scales easily.

As part of the current advocacy activities, it is important to help show the case for broadband connectivity to libraries. I do not know the plans for advocacy activities, but specific groups need to be targeted to ensure that they receive the message that libraries are important when considering broadband deployment to communities and to help them to understand the needs of the libraries. The groups to be targeted include many of the groups we were talking to during our visits. Further, one option that has worked is to have ‘dog and pony shows’ whereby stakeholders are gathered at the library to discuss broadband deployment. One suggestion would be to work with elected officials to invite people to the library and have library staff express their need. Another is to initiate demonstrations of broadband within a public library.

Increase librarian’s knowledge on broadband. Librarians need to understand that broadband is important and in many cases do not understand how to maximize the usage of their connection. Further, they may not know how to use the broadband effectively, how to adequately plan for connectivity, how to effectively apply for E-Rate, negotiate with ISPs, and a host of other broadband specific issues. A program to increase librarians’ knowledge of broadband and technology

Finally, I would like to emphasize that we don’t always have to think big. Occasionally, small things can have an impact on deployment (e.g. One Economy’s strategy to require broadband in housing developments increased deployment in poor areas and low-income housing). Therefore, simple policy statements can have a great impact. One such suggestion would be to re-write zoning laws to make it a requirement to deploy fiber (and no copper) to every new house, business or library that is built for telecommunications. Such a policy shift could help spur deployment of fiber to residential areas and to libraries. As we talk over the next several days, it is important to not always think big thoughts.